Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 Va. App. 173 - Hanson v. Commonwealth

14 Va. App. 173 - Hanson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Riner v. Com. (2004), 14 Va. App. 454 - Hooker v. Commonwealth (1992)

55 state decisions

340199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Marino v. United States · Brogdon v. Louisiana · Higginbotham v. Commonwealth · Ward v. Sentry Title Co. · LeVasseur v. Commonwealth

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he state of mind of a homicide victim is relevant and material only in cases where the defense contends that the death was the result of suicide, accident, or self-defense. In those instances, the state of mind must have been communicated to the accused. For the state of mind of the victim to be relevant to prove the state of mind of the accused, some nexus must exist which inferentially implicates the accused, such as by show ing previous threats made by the defendant towards the victim, narrations of past incidents of violence on the part of the defendant or general verbalizations of fear of the defendant.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[f]or the state of mind of the victim to be relevant to prove the state of mind of the accused, some nexus must exist which inferentially implicates the accused, such as by showing “previous threats made by the defendant towards the victim, narrations of past incidents of violence on the part of the defendant or general verbalizations of fear of the defendant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Whether an extrajudicial statement is hearsay depends upon the purpose for which it is offered and received into evidence. If the statement is received to prove the truth [or falsity] of its content, then it is hearsay and, in order to be admissible, must come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.